Part 1: Chart (60 points) Ethical Issues Based on the Principles of Beneficence Nonmaleficence, autonomy and Justice and Fairness

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence

Autonomy

• On the principle of beneficence there was a chance to reduce the risk of serious and preventable harm.
• This could be by denying Mike a chance to find a religious center and continue with dialysis, which could have saved James’ kidneys
• The principle of nonmaleficence is also an issue as the doctors are bound to do no harm to Samuel, the other identical teen.

• The health practitioners guaranteed autonomy by allowing Mike to take James to a healing center instead of a dialysis
• There is an issue with the autonomy of Samuel, who is a match for James who now needs a kidney transplant

Beneficence, Nonmaleficence, Autonomy

Justice and Fairness

• The quality of life was compromised through the principle of autonomy where Mike was allowed to take James home even though his condition was dire
• When James was taken from the care the first time, the principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence were violated unintentionally.

• Justice was evident through the treatment of Mike and James when they were in and out of the hospital. It was clear that the hospital respected Mike’s faith and when James got sicker, they were willing to take them back in and they did not treat them any differently.
• Fairness is still an issue, as Samuel is a potential donor but it seems unfair to subject him to donation when he is under the consenting age and does not understand truly what is happening.

This caused more harm to the patient, leading to a more dire health issue which has proven to be hard to solve. The principle of nonmaleficence was unintentionally violated. By granting the principle of autonomy, the health practitioners unintentionally violated the principle of nonmaleficence as they ended up causing more harm to the patient.

While they knew the dire state of the patient, they allowed Mike to enjoy some autonomy and respected his decision to remove James from the care, and this led to kidney failure (Fowler & Schoonover-Shoffner, 2023). The principle of justice was evident because regardless of their religious standing, Mike and his family were not treated differently even though some of the staff could have expressed disapproval of how they handled the issue.

However, to protect the patient, while maintaining autonomy, the hospital could have suggested inviting the healers over. This way James could have been under full-time supervision and the negative changes he went through could have been noticed sooner and measures taken to save his liver (Cheraghi et al., 2023). The principle of non-maleficence explains that medical practitioners have a duty not to do harm. Given they were quite aware of the critical condition that James was experiencing, they had a duty to deny Mike autonomy and do what was best for the patient as explaine